The ongoing Boko Haram conflict in the northeast, cycles of communal violence between pastoralists and farmers, and separatist protests in the south defined Nigeria’s human rights landscape in 2017. FIFA World Cup 2018. DOWNLOAD Euro 2016. DOWNLOAD Copa America Centenario 2016. DOWNLOAD Africa Cup of Nations 2017. Logos Pack Season 2018-2019 October 2019. Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates. HOME Tutorial Kits of the Century. Nigeria wc 2018 kitsempty spaces the blog example.
- Reviewers Filessophia Legislative
- Reviewers Filessophia Legislators
- Reviewers Files Sophia Legis Online
ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: This portion of the LegalZoom website is an advertisement. This portion of the LegalZoom website is not a lawyer referral service. LegalZoom does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who advertises on our site. We do not make any representation and have not made any judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating lawyer. The information contained on this site is not legal advice. Any information you submit through this site may not be protected by attorney-client privilege and may be provided to attorneys for the purpose of determining your need for legal services. All case evaluations are performed by a participating attorney.
Reviewers Filessophia Legislative
Find press releases and advisories from OIG as well as from other federal and state organizations. The reviews are rated on the following scale: 6=outstanding, 5=excellent, 4=very good, 3=good, 2=fair, 1=poor. Three sample reviews are given for each rating, beginning with the outstanding (6) reviews. Nov 13, 2007 Manuscript # Note to Reviewers: Please return the completed form with comments (see Page 2) as a. They want to publish it but they’need a minimum of 300 copies to forward to reviewers, wholesalers, critics, agents & Hollywood.” You go “Oh”. They continue, and when orders come in “you should have an inventory of a minimum 1,000 copies to supply”. You go “Oh” and ask “Uh. How much cost to print 1,300 or 1,500?”. Radical America - Vol 8 No 4 - 1973 - July August - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free.
Reviewers Filessophia Legislators
To see the attorney in your area who is responsible for this advertisement, please click here. If you live in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah or Wyoming, please click here for additional information. Not available in Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon and Tennessee.
This advertisement and all attorney services may be subject to additional terms and conditions, located on the website of each attorney. Please visit the website of the sponsoring attorney in your area for more details. Any arrangement made by you and your attorney is strictly between you and them.
| Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome | Year |
| Scientific Reports | 34.6 weeks | 39.1 weeks | n/a | 1 | 4 (very good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Scientific Reports | 8.1 weeks | 8.1 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: Reviewer 1 seems to not have been aware of the journal's article structure (introduction, results, discussion, methods), and commented to have missed a section that was included with the manuscript. Reviewer 2 had many good suggestions that will strengthen the manuscript when submitted elsewere. the manuscript was transferred from NHB, but the transfer was not as smooth as promised, with many changes necessary to fit the NHB manuscript to the SR format. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 45.1 weeks | 49.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 1 (bad) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: It took >10 months for the first reviewer reports to arrive, which is the longest duration from submission to first reviewer feedback out of >10 journals we recently published in. If the manuscript had been of above average length it might be understandable that the review process takes longer, but it was in fact quite short (5400 words). | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 10.0 weeks | 24.9 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: The reviewers' reports were very interesting and helped us improve the manuscript. However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 8.4 weeks | 13.3 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Scientific Reports | 7.3 weeks | 23.6 weeks | n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) | 0 (very bad) | Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: None of the reviews raised any serious challenges to the research and the writeup of the ms. At the end of the day, after we had, in our judgment, thoroughly addressed all the reviewer's points, none of our rebuttals were addressed but the editor had a colleague on the editorial board review it and this editor, who was obviously ignorant of the domain, recommended rejection. What was particularly galling was that the action editor provided no opportunity to address this last review. All in all, it was the worst and most caprisious editorial experience I've had or witnessed (I myself have been an editor) in my professional life. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | Drawn back before first editorial decision after 71 days | Drawn back | 2020 | |||||
| Motivation: It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | n/a | n/a | 251.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
| Scientific Reports | 21.6 weeks | 24.6 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: It took so much time before receiving the first decision. The status of the article is not available for the authors. This is so stressful. Then, I asked the status several times. The answers from the office were not so slow as the processing for review. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 6.1 weeks | 8.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: One reviewer was very thorough and caught some small inconsistencies and even requested some new material (a little bit tangential to the work) to be added. But, we considered his comments very appropriate and definitely contributed to the final paper. The second reviewer made a very superficial reading of the text, mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the text. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 8.4 weeks | 11.4 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Scientific Reports | 19.5 weeks | 21.5 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Scientific Reports | 7.0 weeks | 11.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Scientific Reports | 20.9 weeks | 32.3 weeks | n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) | 2 (moderate) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: Extremely long and frustrating processing time. The article went through several rounds of revision and would get kicked back by quality check for different things that weren't identified in previous rounds, each time taking a week to go through another quality check. It took over a month to find an editor for the article and one was identified only after I reached out to the journal to figure out why the manuscript hadn't moved and suggested more potential editors. The length of the review stage was on par with other journals, but the manuscript sat in Decision Started status for over a month. I got no response to my inquiries during this time. It took ~5 months to get the first review back, which is significantly longer than any other journal that I've used. On a positive note, the reviewer comments were thorough and did improve the manuscript. Subsequent review rounds did not take as long individually, but the manuscript spent over 8 months under review (not including time spent working on revisions). | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 7.1 weeks | 13.6 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Scientific Reports | 22.4 weeks | 35.1 weeks | n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) | 0 (very bad) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: Handling was extremely poor, with long times to allocate reviewers and for review. Manuscript was initially rejected, despite meeting the journal’s publication criteria; an appeal was successful. Review of the revised manuscript took 3 months. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 3.1 weeks | 4.3 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Scientific Reports | 15.6 weeks | 15.6 weeks | n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2018 |
| Motivation: The reviewers' comments suggest that reviewers didn't read the article thoroughly, and possibly skipped the whole Supplementary Information file. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 4.4 weeks | 8.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: We have had a mostly positive experience submitting to Scientific Reports, considering the short initial review process and the subsequent revisions. The only downside is how picky the journal is with regards to the 'Quality Check' as we had to resubmit several times following the first round of revision due to files going missing from the system in the process and one file not being noticed by the editorial staff (not very professional). But an overall speedy and hassle-free process. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 11.9 weeks | 14.6 weeks | n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Scientific Reports | 4.3 weeks | 8.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: For an open access journal, the speed and quality of review was satisfactory to me. I was driven to submit to Sci Rep because the work (lab-on-a-chip) we wanted to publish was deemed not suited for Lab on a Chip journal! We were recommended RSC Advances. We chose Sci Rep over other alternatives because the review is not centered around impact but validity of results. We are confident of the positive impact of our work and did not need further validation. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 5.7 weeks | 5.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Rejected | 2017 |
| Motivation: Although it was rejection but reviewers understood the work and provides the limitations and proper reason (after in-depth review) that why the work was not suitable for publication in Scientific Reports. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 8.7 weeks | 14.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: Quite long but constructive review process. Editors and reviewers were understood the work properly and provide important feedbacks about the work. The final decision after three review rounds was accept. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 17.0 weeks | 17.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: It took a very long time to be rejected. One reviewer was quite insulting in the use of his language. It would have been better had the editor sent it out again for a more neutral response. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 6.7 weeks | 10.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: Overall, the process was relatively quick and painless. One reviewer gave constructive criticism that improved the paper somewhat. The other review, while favourable, was very summaric and did not suggest any changes. Despite the rapid handling of the manuscript, there was still some room for speeding up the process since the revised manuscript curiously sat with the editor for 3 weeks, without being sent out for a second round of peer-review, and without any additional comments or edits being requested by the editor. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 9.1 weeks | 15.7 weeks | n/a | 1 | 2 (moderate) | 0 (very bad) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: I have never experienced the similar problem elsewhere through my > 20 years career. Being rejected even twice after the dubious review and editorial decision, I doubt if some editorial board members have sufficient competence to handle manuscripts and reviewer comments properly. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 15.4 weeks | 32.1 weeks | n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: The first reviewing time was extreamly long, than, after sending back the revised manuscript, 2 of the 3 original reviewers did not participate any longer in the reviewing process and a new reviewer joined, making the reviwing process even more longer. The editorial handling was quiet fast though. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 13.0 weeks | 15.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: It's definitely not a fast journal, first round took more than 2 months and the second round around 3 weeks. The reviewer comments are not really helpful and did not improved the final paper much. Overall, I think this is a slightly higher than average journal with long handling time and not-so-efficient editors. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 5.6 weeks | 10.1 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 3 (good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: One of the two reviewers formulated useful, minor suggestions, while the comments of the other reviewer were confusing and sometimes completely incomprehensible and in very poor English. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 3.9 weeks | 3.9 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Scientific Reports | Drawn back before first editorial decision after 192 days | Drawn back | 2019 | |||||
| Motivation: A transferred manuscript which is supposed to reasonably decrease review time was unfortunately failed to get a handling editor for two months, unbelievably. Yet, after receiving a review, the manuscript had again stuck in the hands of the handling editor for more than two months because of the unavailability of additional reviewers. We tried to reach out to the editorial office to explain the situation but apologizing for the delay in all of our three communications was what we received. This is a very chilling and outrageous experience we have ever had. Submitting to this journal is waste of time. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 2.4 weeks | 3.1 weeks | n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2017 |
| Motivation: The editor was efficient and the reviewers' comments are reasonable and logical, which helped in improving the manuscript. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 5.9 weeks | 21.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 0 (very bad) | Drawn back | 2019 |
| Motivation: Although it was an uneasy decision for us, we have decided to withdraw our manuscript after nearly 8 months of the lengthy review process. We have learned after withdrawal that the journal had a positive (considered for publication ) review from one of the reviewers. The second reviewer, however, has never sent his/her opinion on the revised manuscript (six months after submission, until withdrawal). We think that the journal had multiple options to deal with this situation, for instance they could find another reviewer or take a decision based on the opinion of the first reviewer and the editor assigned to the paper. Since SREP is in the business of APC (article processing charge)-based publishing, it should guarantee to its authors an engagement of a responsible editorial board and a team of trustworthy reviewers in order to structure an effective and operational review process. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 6.0 weeks | 7.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: The process is smooth, but the initial quality check takes way too long. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 9.0 weeks | 10.4 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: For the initial quality check for the manuscript submission, the journal was suggested us to provide the full-length gels and blots as a supplementary Information. So Fig S9 and S10 are the original full-length blots which we took some times to find them. This is our fist experience to provide the such kinds of original data. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 13.6 weeks | 13.6 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 3 (good) | Rejected | 2018 |
| Scientific Reports | 17.4 weeks | 21.7 weeks | n/a | 1 | 3 (good) | 1 (bad) | Accepted | 2017 |
| Motivation: Decision is very slow. Furthermore, editorial office did not response to my e-mail considering delay of first decision. There is no direct way to contact office. Just e-mail. I did not get any response. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 23.9 weeks | 39.3 weeks | n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) | 0 (very bad) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: In line with many reviews here: The handling time is way too long (ridiculous quality check), reviewer comments were not useful at all. In the end, the published version was almost identical to the first version submitted but the whole process took 9 months. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 13.0 weeks | 13.0 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: We received two reviews, after three months, with the decision to reject the manuscript. Reviewer comments were fair, and the decision to reject was based on one of the reviewers comments about methodological concerns. These study caveats are discussed and justified in the manuscript. The other review was positive and constructive. I have no problem with the outcome, but 3 months is a long time to wait for a rejection. | ||||||||
| Scientific Reports | 15.9 weeks | 15.9 weeks | n/a | 2 | 0 (very bad) | 0 (very bad) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: The review process is too sluggish. Really horrible. After 15.9 weeks they rejected my manuscript without any chance of self-defense. | ||||||||
Reviewers Files Sophia Legis Online